Building Agreement - One Game at a Time

I've been focusing recently on the topic of building agreement - and the challenges and best practices involved in finding common ground with others, especially those who seem to be a world apart from you. Improv, by the very nature of its major tenet ("Say 'Yes And'"), provides concepts and practical activities that can instill a cooperative attitude in the mind of the performance improviser as well as that of the Daily Improviser.

In addition to a cooperative mindset, anyone wanting to build his agreement-building capabilities through negotiation and solution-finding must become skilled at navigating the seeming contradictions and incompatibilities of the parties' positions. I say "seeming" because, as I've pointed out before, improv as a form proceeds on the notion that everything can ultimately be connected and resolved - even such apparently incongruous notions as, say, "a Sumo wrestler performing Swan Lake."

Listed below are a few activities drawn from the world of improv that can help build negotiating and solution-finding skills. (By the way, I don't claim that any of these is original with me - I've derived them from existing sources.)

YES BUT
The "Yes But" game brings into awareness the downsides of contradicting others' perspectives. You can then contrast that approach by following up with a round of "Yes And," thus showing how taking a more positive, agreement-based direction can open up possibilities between the parties.

PAIRED DRAWING
Partner up. Partner #1 starts drawing a picture on a piece of paper. After 30 seconds, Partner #1 stops drawing and Partner #2 continues the drawing that Partner #1 started. The partners continue to alternate making additions to the drawing, without talking, until one partner feels that the drawing is finished, whereupon he starts captioning the drawing by writing a single letter at the bottom of the page. The other partner then adds the second letter. Partners alternate writing a letter until the caption is complete.

This game encourages cooperative action on the part of the players and teaches them to take into account and build upon the contributions of the other rather than trying to force through an outcome on their own.

QUIT YOUR DAY JOB!
(Works best with 3-4 players.) Each player lists three things that he likes to do in his spare time - or would do if he had any spare time. The players then brainstorm a possible business the three of them could create that would incorporate an element from each of their lists. For example, Partner #1 lists "Surfing," Partner #2 lists "Collect vintage gas pumps," and Partner #3 lists "Record collecting." Their brainstorming leads to an idea: Self-guided tour maps of Southern California surfing spots, illustrated with road memorabilia and lyric excerpts from surf-music songs.

This game encourages the parties to use their combined creative abilities to find commonalities that might not be apparent at first.

Sharpen Your Collaboration Skills (but Don't Leave Your Partners Flat)

In my past few articles, I’ve been discussing the potential power of using creative abrasion to spark innovation and making forceful choices as a way of challenging another person’s version of the truth. As I've said, making strong choices can be a form of support, in that it shows a person’s willingness to fully engage in an interaction rather than just sit back and acquiesce in the other’s point of view (while often silently crafting a dissenting opinion in his head). A person may think he is being a good team player by holding his counsel rather than expressing how he really feels. In fact, though, playing it “close to the vest” rather than openly sharing thoughts (and being open to the other’s thoughts) is a sure way to prevent real trust from developing between individuals and teams.

However, as I said last time, it’s possible to go too far down the path of “calling it as you see it,” a course that can damage relationships and prevent a willingness on the part of others to join you in a collaborative search for truth.

I recall a conversation I had with two people several years ago that illustrates the downsides of this “take me as I am” kind of approach. One person was describing to me a common Feedback Formula she used when letting others know about performance that she felt fell below standards:

• Provide a balanced description of the other’s actions in objective, behavioral terms;
• Describe the impact of those actions;
• Ask the other for his reaction.

I don’t recall the example the person provided, so I'll provide my own illustration:

“Fred, in that presentation, you did a good job of maintaining eye contact with the audience and speaking in a strong voice. I felt that helped to draw the audience into what you were saying. I also noticed a couple of times when you started to answer their questions before they finished talking. That may be why they didn’t respond toward the end when you asked for more questions. How do you see the situation?”

I was surprised when the third person in our conversation seemed to be almost offended by the Feedback-Formula approach. She basically said: “Why tiptoe around the issue like that? I’d just flat-out tell them what they did wrong!”

I also don’t recall the example that the person provided – but I suspect her alternative feedback statement would be: (a) Quick, (b) Focused only on the negative, (c) Loaded with labels and interpretations of behavior, and (d) Lacking an invitation to the other person to describe how he or she sees it.

I can imagine what a “flat-out telling them” statement would sound like:

“Fred, that was a pretty bad presentation. You messed up big time, and you totally lost the audience.”

Quick. To the point. No tiptoeing. However …

Recall my previous article, in which I mentioned Mick Napier’s contention that, on the improv stage, a strong offer can be a supportive offer. But the “flat-out” statement is a perfect example of a strong non-supportive offer. What can the receiver of that statement do with it? What information does it provide that can guide his next move? And just at a basic human level: How would it make the receiver feel – about either his ability to develop into a good presenter or his regard for the speaker?

By contrast, how would you answer those same questions with respect to the Feedback Formula statement?

Just as “searching for agreement” is not the same as “being agreeable,” using “creative abrasion” as a way to spark change is not the same as “being abrasive.” The Wright Brothers’ brand of improv (which I cited in a recent article) may have been energetic, loud, and full of strong offers – but ultimately their mutual trust and their laser-focused commitment to a common goal told them when to shift from acting contentiously to acting collaboratively.

I suspect, however, that the “flat-out” statement noted above would have quite a different effect.

It would leave the interaction – and the other person – flat.